Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:10:25.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethnic Integration and School Policies in Latvia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Rasma Karklins
Rasma Karklins*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois-Chicago, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Latvia's education system shows little movement toward ethnic integration in the sense of homogenization, yet there is integration in the sense of a widely accepted status quo. Linguistically separated schools act as safeguards of cultural identity for Latvians and non-Latvians alike and may well be the linchpin guaranteeing ethnic peace. As argued by pluralist thinkers, comprehensive ethnic mixing and homogenizing of multiethnic populations can be problematic, whereas providing a framework for the stable preservation of distinct identities can lead to better integration overall. The multi-lingual school system of Latvia that operates in the broader context of smooth economic integration illustrates the merits of such a mixed integrative policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 283 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

* Revised version of a paper presented at the convention of the Association for the Study of Nationalities, New York, 24 April 1997. The work leading to this report was supported in part from funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research and the International Research and Exchange Board. I gratefully acknowledge their support, as well as support by the Rockefeller Center for Scholars, Bellagio, Italy. Neither is responsible for the content or findings of this report.Google Scholar

1. See also Karklins, Rasma, “Ethnopolitics and Language Strategies in Latvia,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 28 August 1997, and other papers, forthcoming.Google Scholar

2. Anatol Lieven for one has revised his earlier gloomy statements about increasing ethnic conflict in the Baltic States. Response to questions, “Nation-Building in the Baltic States” Conference at the University of Chicago, 2–4 May 1996.Google Scholar

3. Horowitz, Donald L., Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).Google Scholar

4. Lijphart, Arend, Democracy in Plural Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977); and Karklins, Rasma, Ethnopolitics and Transition to Democracy: The Collapse of the USSR and Latvia (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), ch. 1 and 2.Google Scholar

5. Loeber, Dietrich A., “Language Rights in Independent Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania,” in Vilfan, S., ed., Ethnic Groups and Language Rights, Vol. III (New York: New York University Press, 1993), pp. 221–249; Henninh, Detlef, “Die Sprachenpolitik und die Gewährleistung des Bildungswesens nationaler Minderheiten in Lettland,” in Meissner, Boris et al., eds, Der Aufbau einer freiheitlich-demokratischen Ordnung in den baltischen Staaten (Hamburg: Bibliotheca Baltica, 1995), pp. 257–289.Google Scholar

6. For more details see Karklins, (1994), pp. 151–157.Google Scholar

7. un Zinätnes Ministrija, Izglïtïbas, Latvijas Skolu un Statistikas Datu Kopsavilkums, Vol. III (Riga, 1997), pp. 33–34.Google Scholar

8. Druviete, Ina, ed., The Language Situation in Latvia: Sociolinguistic Survey (Riga: Latvian Language Institute, 1995), p. 2.Google Scholar

9. Diena, 23 March 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Skolu datu kopsavilkumi, op. cit., p. 39.Google Scholar

11. Ministry of Education, unpublished statistical tables.Google Scholar

12. Eglite, Pärsla, “Tautas izmiršanas draudi un to noveršanas iespējas,” Latvijas Vēstnesis, 7 February 1996.Google Scholar

13. The net migration from Latvia in 1991–1995 was 114,968. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Demographic Yearbook of Latvia 1996 (Riga, 1996), p. 116. I calculate that roughly 20% were of school age, since in 1994, 24% of emigrants fell into the 7–19 age group. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Demographic Yearbook of Latvia 1995 (Riga, 1995), p. 136.Google Scholar

14. Mežs, Ilmärs, “Mācïbu valoda Latvijas skolās,” Izglītība un Kultūra, 26 January 1996, p. 11.Google Scholar

15. Personal information, Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar

16. Personal information, Ministry of Education and a school director.Google Scholar

17. Liepina, Dzintra, Nelatviešu un jaukto gˋimenu bērnu integräcijas latviešu sakumskolā pedagogˋiskie aspekti (Riga: Latvijas Universitātes Pedagogˋiska un Psihologijas katedra, 1996), p. 31. The findings are based on questionnaires of 49 parents and 12 teachers, as well as oral interviews with 31 children.Google Scholar

18. Liepina, , pp. 34–38, 45.Google Scholar

19. Saturina, Māra, “Integrācija—mīts vai realitāte?” Izglītība un Kultūra, 27 June 1996; also Diena, 15 March 1995.Google Scholar

20. Vēbers, Ēriks, “Asimilācija … bet kāda?” Izglītība un Kultūra, 16 May 1996, p. 14.Google Scholar

21. On psychological consequences see SM Segodnja, 2 October 1995, also 7 June 1995.Google Scholar

22. Diena, 4 September 1995.Google Scholar

23. Ministry of Education, unpublished statistics.Google Scholar

24. Jelgavas Zinas, 6 March 1996. The same report notes that several teachers in the school had false language certification papers.Google Scholar

25. Unpublished report of Riga Language Attestation Committee, 1995, undated.Google Scholar

26. Survey undertaken by the Naturalization Board, Fall 1995, N = 2,495.Google Scholar

27. Baltic Data House survey of February/March 1997; representative country-wide sample. The survey was sponsored by UNDP.Google Scholar

28. Diena, 19 April 1995.Google Scholar

29. Diena, 9 October 1995; 7 December 1996, other reports.Google Scholar

30. Detailed reports on successes at Russian schools are in Neatkarīga Cina, 1 July 1995, Izglītība un Kultūra, 30 November 1995, et al.Google Scholar

31. Izglītība un Kultūra, 6 February 1997, p. 7.Google Scholar

32. Letters of teachers of Latvian in Russian schools, Rīgas Balss, 21, 28 May, 1996.Google Scholar

33. Central Statistics Bureau of Latvia, Educational Institutions in Latvia at the Beginning of School Year 1996/97, Statistical Bulletin (Riga, 1997), pp. 45, 48.Google Scholar

34. Diena, 6 February 1996, p. 2.Google Scholar

35. Diena, 8 November 1995.Google Scholar

36. Ministry of Education, internal report, 17 January 1997, p. 36.Google Scholar

37. Izglītība un Kultūra, 18 April 1996; also 13 February 1997.Google Scholar

38. Diena, 17 May 1996.Google Scholar

39. Diena, 20 April 1996.Google Scholar

40. Izglītība un Kultūra, 18 April 1996.Google Scholar

41. Ministry of Education, personal communication; on problems with books see also Dinaburg, 28 November 1996.Google Scholar

42. Diena, 25 February 1997.Google Scholar

43. Cited in Jēkabsons, Ēriks, Poli Latvijā (Riga: Ethnic Studies Center of Academy of Sciences, 1996), p. 82.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., p. 83.Google Scholar

45. Mežs, Ilmārs, Diena, 15 March 1995.Google Scholar

46. Jēkabsons, , op. cit., p. 67.Google Scholar

47. Cited in Jēkabsons, , p. 82.Google Scholar

48. Text in Bizness&Baltija, 20 May 1996.Google Scholar

49. Diena, 27 May 1996, p. 3.Google Scholar

50. Karklins, Rasma, Ethnic Relations in the USSR: The Perspective from Below (London: Allen and Unwin, 1986).Google Scholar

51. Latvijas Vēstnesis, No. 107, 1996, p. 4.Google Scholar

52. Izglītība un Kultūra, 13 February 1997; Labrīt, 6 December 1994. On decline of births, see Table 2.Google Scholar

53. Nils Muižnieks and Angelita Kamenska, “Latvian Language Training: Alternative Conceptions of Integration,” manuscript, 1997, p. 6.Google Scholar

54. Baltic Data House Survey, November 1996.Google Scholar

55. Druviete (1995), question 28.Google Scholar

56. The instrumental nature of language learning motives is evident from several UNDP surveys fielded by the Baltic Data House in June 1996, and February/March 1997. The two most highly ranked motives are that Latvian is “a necessity of daily life,” and “need for work, career.”Google Scholar

57. For example SM Segodnja, 18 April 1996, and 15 May 1996; Bizness Baltija, 17 April 1996.Google Scholar

58. Vulfsons, Mavriks, Globuss program, Latvian State TV1, 22 December 1995.Google Scholar

59. Diena, 23 March 1996 and 17 April 1996.Google Scholar

60. Sreda, 3 July 1996; Million, 5 April 1996.Google Scholar

61. Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze, 15 May 1996; SM Segodnja, 9 December 1996.Google Scholar

62. Statement at conference on minority issues, April 1996, Riga School of Economics, Riga.Google Scholar

63. Diena, 24 April 1996.Google Scholar

64. Izglītība un Kultūra, 17 April 1997.Google Scholar

65. Diena, 20 April 1996.Google Scholar

66. Apine, Ilga, “Krievi Baltijas valsīs,” Diena, 25 November 1996, p. 13.Google Scholar

67. Diena, 26 June 1996.Google Scholar

68. Interview, Izglītība un Kultūra, 14 March 1996, p. 6.Google Scholar

69. Rīgas Balss, 30 January 1997.Google Scholar

70. Izglītība un Kultūra, 6 March 1997, p. 11.Google Scholar

71. Izglītība un Kultūra, 16 November 1995. Presumably the eventual change would retain separate schools for Russians as the Tēvzeme party rejects the individual or mass enrollment of non-Latvian children in Latvian schools. Radio interview with Pamīra Lāce, 12 December 1995.Google Scholar

72. Ābikis, Dzintars, statement at seminar on civic integration, Riga, 7 February 1996; also Diena, 5 May 1997.Google Scholar